Does the Universe Have a Mind of Its Own?

[Paul Martin]

It seems like we have two distint lines of thought going on with in the central concept of 'Universe Consiousness/Mind' (if I'm allowed to equate the two)
Paul you said:
This is an excellent analogy, I’m sure I follow your line of reasoning. I was coming at this from a perhaps parallel line of thought. Could not the ‘Cars’ in this case be embedded with a ‘chip’ if you will that has the property of personality attribute and the chip could be linked to the universal mind, and the unimind serve as a backup to the experiences that the car picks up that shapes its individuality along its world line? Further could not all these cars serve to enhance the existential and experiential attainment of this unimind? (note: have to go to class will continue this line.)

I'd say "yes" to both your questions. I'm not exactly sure what you meant by "backup" though. I suspect that the unimind somehow collects and stores information from the individual world line experiences. That might be what you mean. Maybe something like "The Book of Life" that some traditions talk about, and which some NDE experiencers have reported seeing.

I like the chip idea. I think it is a mistake to consider consciousness to be happening, or going on, in the brain. Just as a chip does not know or understand or appreciate the significance of any of the enormous amount of data it might process, I don't think that the brain does either. In both cases, IMHO, the brain/chip has the ability to collect, store, process, and transmit huge amounts of data, but understanding, appreciation, or any other conscious awareness of significance of patterns in that data all accrue to a conscious agent outside of the brain/chip.

Just a guess, but it sure seems to make sense of a lot of puzzling phenomena.

Paul

 

[Paul Martin]

The devil is apparently in the details. What part of "everything in evidence" in the biological sphere do you not believe evolution does explain or account for? Eyes? Wings? Species?

The ubiquity of sleep in not only animal species but in individuals as well.

 

[Rade]

It is not a scientific fact nor is it a scientific law. it is a scientific theory and a very good one. Yet, it addresses only HOW and not WHY.

But, ALL THEORIES have as building blocks "facts" and "laws"--and clearly this bar is reached by "Organic Theory of Evolution". And, of course evolutionists ask "why" questions, to suggest otherwise is bunk and the reason why this thread is in the philosophy section and not biology:
So, here from "The Diversity of Life" by E. O. Wilson (1992) we read: "The Bald Eagle, one species, flies above the Chippewa National Forest of Minnesota. A thousand species of plants compose the vegetation below. Why does this particular combination obtain rather than 1000 eagles and 1 plant" ?
And, then from Desmond Morris, "The Naked Ape" (1967), why are humans the only primates with a non-vestigial hymen ?
But, let's just cut to the quick and read a textbook called " The Science of Evolution", W. D. Stansfield (1977):
1. Charles Darwin in 1830s asked " why was each island in the Galapagos archipelago populated by its own species of finch, found nowhere else in the world ?
2. Why should the mammalian embryo have to pass through a stage in which it forms gill arches and gill slits if these structures are never to function as such ?
3. Why in certain parts of Africa where malaria is endemic is the abnormal S^2 gene for the beta chain of hemoglobin found in high frequency ?
4. Why do some orchids of the genus Orphrys have flowers that not only mimic the shape of insects, but also give off an odor similar to (at times stronger than) the odor emitted by the female of the insect species ?
5. why, why, why, why, ? It is just about the single most important question that any evolutionary biologist asks.
But, now let us suggest a true axiom, e.g., that the creationists, the intelligent design folks, and the mystics never, ever, ask HOW.

 

[Rade]

... I think it is a mistake to consider consciousness to be happening, or going on, in the brain.

Where exactly in the human body do you consider consciousness "to be happening" ? Perhaps in my finger nail ? And, are you saying that consciousness never goes on in the brain, or is just not limited to the brain for such goings on ? And, what do you mean by brain ? Is it the organ comprised mostly of nerve tissue, plus chemicals, blood, etc ? --or is it to you some thing different ? Now, I am just so confused by this statement of yours I'm sorry for asking such simpleton questions.

 

[LaPalida]

To Les,

There is no difference between the two mutations (macro and micro), you're making a false distinction and then touting it as true. Organ development is just a whole load of superficial mutations happening over a much longer period of time. You say that it is bad logic to extrapolate that microevolutionary processes, which you agree are observed today in the variation of bird beaks for example, are responsible for evolution of new organs. How is this bad logic exactly? Is it so hard to imagine that for example a chihuahua will one day, if isolated, become a different species with differently adapted organs from a great dane? But no you don't deny that because you don't deny commmon descent. You say "show me organ development taking place right now". But we both know that organ development takes incredibly large amount of time (ranging in millions of years). Therefore it is impossible to reproduce this in the lab. You know clearly that it cannot be reproduced in the lab because if it could then that would falsify Evolution, that postulates that it happens over crazy long stretches of time. The fact that we can't produce organ development in a lab actually supports Evolution. This false distinction is in fact the very argument that creationists and IDers use to show that "evolution is dogmatic". So how exactly do you differentiate between them and yourself if you use exactly the same arguments? You say that the Cambrian explosion cannot be explained by random mutation. How exactly? Because you say 10 million years is too little time. Little for what exactly? Livers hearts and kidneys? None of these things were around during the Cambrian. They evolved after the Cambrian over longer periods of time, just like the animals we see today around us (giraffes, octopi and gorillas). Assuming that it wasn't only chance isn't wrong, because it wasn't all chance. It was random mutation coupled with various other factors that served as a catalyst (predation/ns, snowball Earth/changes in the environment, sexual selection, etc), the "how of it" which is currently hotly debated among the scientists. Assuming that it was only chance is wrong, assuming further that the ONLY other viable explanation available is that "God did it" (because universal conciousness is just another word for God let's face it) is clearly abandoning all logic and reason and jumping to unfounded conclusions because you might just as well say that it was pink unicorns in toutous that did it or the Flying Spaghetti Monster and it would have the same amount of evidence for it. How are we sure that it's chance - because there is no pattern observed and no evidence for anything guiding it. Harmful mutations occur as randomly as the harmless and beneficial ones. You have absolutely no shred of evidence to show us that this is guided and not random. Is the lottery spinning the balls guided too perhaps? You don't know that it's not random... it's all speculation.

See, this is where you lose credibility as someone who is broadly educated enough to give an informed opinion on possible influences on the development of this universe. You are so informed on the science side, but your understanding of the sources of the universal consciousness reports is downright meager.

Yeah ... except that the evidence in the "universal conciousness reports" is downright meager. Prove me wrong.

 

[Paul Martin]

Where exactly in the human body do you consider consciousness "to be happening" ? Perhaps in my finger nail ?

Not in the body at all and not in the physical universe. I think there is much more to reality than the physical universe. I think Penrose's suggestion is plausible: that in addition to the physical universe there exists, in maybe not exactly the same way, a mental universe and an ideal universe. I think consciousness is lodged wholly within the mental universe.

And, are you saying that consciousness never goes on in the brain, or is just not limited to the brain for such goings on ? ?

The former. I think consciousness goes on only in the mental world but that there is communication among all three Penrose worlds.

And, what do you mean by brain ? Is it the organ comprised mostly of nerve tissue, plus chemicals, blood, etc ? --or is it to you some thing different ? ?

I mean exactly what you said. It is the physical organ inside the skull.

Now, I am just so confused by this statement of yours I'm sorry for asking such simpleton questions.

Sorry if I caused any confusion. I think the problem might be that you have not agreed to accept my hypothesis, that there exists only one consciousness. Or, what I think is equivalent, the hypothesis raised by the original question of this thread: whether there might exist a universal consciousness. If you accept that hypothesis, in the same way you tentatively accept a mathematical proposition, simply for the sake of argument, then I think the statements I have made are really simple and not confusing. I have not asked you to believe the hypothesis; I only ask that you consider the hypothesis and try to figure out what might be inferred from it.

Paul

 

[Amp1]

Yes, it does make more sense than a lot of the hoopla, Paul.

LaPalida, how would you intergrate 'Mitochondria' into the theory of evolution. I've read somewhere that Mitochondria gives evolutionists a fit because they have their own DNA. If this is true and they are not just some symbiote that just happened to latch onto the cells of I think most living organisms, then how do you explain them? They are, I believe, indispensable to life or at least the function of the majority of life on Earth.

 

[Les Sleeth]

There is no difference between the two mutations (macro and micro), you're making a false distinction and then touting it as true. Organ development is just a whole load of superficial mutations happening over a much longer period of time.

Lol. How the heck do you know that? See, you are doing exactly what I am complaining about. You have stated what created organs like it is a fact, rather than making it clear that evolutionary theory proposes that organs came about through . . .

And I've not said there is no difference between the two mutations, I've said there are no observations (i.e., evidence) that the microevolutionary processes we can observe today produced organs. Now, if you can demonstrate it creating organs (or in the process of creating them), then I will gladly accept that. I don't care what the truth is you know (even if I were a God believer, I don't think the reality of evolution disproves God). My concern is about objectivity.

You say that it is bad logic to extrapolate that microevolutionary processes, which you agree are observed today in the variation of bird beaks for example, are responsible for evolution of new organs. How is this bad logic exactly? Is it so hard to imagine that for example a chihuahua will one day, if isolated, become a different species with differently adapted organs from a great dane?

Yes, I say it is bad logic, and your examples don't fix that. A chihuahua can become a different species without new organs, and adapting a functioning intact organ is an entirely different issue than creating a functioning organ from scratch.

But no you don't deny that because you don't deny commmon descent. You say "show me organ development taking place right now".

Well, there are plenty of primitive critters around without livers or pancreases who could use one. There may be nearly two million species, and many billions of living things, why aren't there NEW organs in the process of evolving?

But we both know that organ development takes incredibly large amount of time (ranging in millions of years). Therefore it is impossible to reproduce this in the lab. You know clearly that it cannot be reproduced in the lab because if it could then that would falsify Evolution, that postulates that it happens over crazy long stretches of time. The fact that we can't produce organ development in a lab actually supports Evolution.

No, the THEORY of evolution claims organ development occurred that way. So far it hasn't been observed. You don't have to reproduce it in the lab, just find some creatures in the process of developing new and high-functioning organs.

And do you know how the fact that such organ development can't be found is explained by evolutionists? They say, "well, it stopped now."

Great tactic!

Why is it my problem that evolutionists cannot make their case? They are the ones asserting something is true, and they are the ones who claim they are doing science. It is the standards of science which demand that evidence match the degree one states something is true or likely, so evolutionists are breaking their own rules, not mine. I'm just trying to insist they abide by the rules of evidence and logic.

This false distinction is in fact the very argument that creationists and IDers use to show that "evolution is dogmatic". So how exactly do you differentiate between them and yourself if you use exactly the same arguments? You say that the Cambrian explosion cannot be explained by random mutation. How exactly?

Oh, now there's a nasty little back-stabbing debating tactic. If a Nazi says we should love our children, and you say we should love our children, then are you a Nazi? I ran into that same ridiculous logic when I cited some points Phillip Johnson has made. Because he's the ID guru, people argued nothing he says can be considered plausible. Now does that make sense to you?

To make your case, or cast doubt on other's argument, you offer logic and evidence; you don't associate someone with person or philosophy an entire group is prejudiced against.

It was random mutation coupled with various other factors that served as a catalyst (predation/ns, snowball Earth/changes in the environment, sexual selection, etc), the "how of it" which is currently hotly debated among the scientists.

Bull, you don't know any of that, and neither does anyone else. Once again you are making my case for me, that evolutionist "believers" talk theory like it is fact.

Assuming that it was only chance is wrong, assuming further that the ONLY other viable explanation available is that "God did it" (because universal conciousness is just another word for God let's face it) is clearly abandoning all logic and reason and jumping to unfounded conclusions because you might just as well say that it was pink unicorns in toutous that did it or the Flying Spaghetti Monster and it would have the same amount of evidence for it.

More strawman balony. I have never said God did it, and I have not concluded anything else either. You are the one who is repeately jumping to the conclusion that evolution did it. I am content to leave the question open until there is more evidence. When are you going to stop accusing me of what you are doing?

How are we sure that it's chance - because there is no pattern observed and no evidence for anything guiding it.

Please, take a logic course! So, because one thing lacks evidence, you get to stick in your pet theory which also lacks evidence? Show me the evidence that chance alone creates high-functioning systems? The main thing I see chance doing is creating chaos, so I'd love to see the type of chance you seem to know about.

Harmful mutations occur as randomly as the harmless and beneficial ones. You have absolutely no shred of evidence to show us that this is guided and not random. Is the lottery spinning the balls guided too perhaps? You don't know that it's not random... it's all speculation.

You don't have the evidence that chance can create an organ either. It's just that you already believe in evolution and so ignore and demean anything which challenges it, and then gloss over the crappy evidence you have for your cherished belief.

Yeah ... except that the evidence in the "universal conciousness reports" is downright meager. Prove me wrong.

Why is it my responsibility to educate you? I've have many, many times explained how one can investigate the reports. If you want to remain in ignorance of those reports, that's your decision.

 

[Rade]

Not in the body at all and not in the physical universe. I think there is much more to reality than the physical universe. I think Penrose's suggestion is plausible: that in addition to the physical universe there exists, in maybe not exactly the same way, a mental universe and an ideal universe. I think consciousness is lodged wholly within the mental universe. The former. I think consciousness goes on only in the mental world but that there is communication among all three Penrose worlds. ...I have not asked you to believe the hypothesis; I only ask that you consider the hypothesis and try to figure out what might be inferred from it.Paul

Of course I am open to a valid scientific hypothesis. But, does not a valid scientific hypothesis need to meet the bar of Popper and be such that it can be "falsified" ? If so, then I cannot see how the Penrose hypothesis (thus yours) meets the bar of being "science"--is it not either philosophy or religion or some mix of both ?Clearly it cannot be "science" if it "exists" in another dimension of reality and does not follow the known laws of nature (such as E = Mc^2). And, if it does follow such laws, then no need to place it outside the known universe.
As you know, the human mind can be very creative and form all kinds of immagination (as a child I was always facinated by "Pan" in the dictionary--I think it was the picture that goes with the concept). Is it not just as logical for me in infer that Pan invented consciousness in animals (and hence the human animal), and if not, why not, why not accept the Pan Hypothesis as being just as valid as the Penrose Hypothesis ? Pan is a God--who is Penrose ?
Also, more than a few people follow the Pastafarian Philosophy on this issue:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster
Now, you ask me to infer what might be made of the Penrose Hypothesis -- and I very seriously find it much closer to the Pan Hypothesis and the Pastafarian Philosophy than the explanation provided by the Organic Theory of Evolution concerning the origin of consciousness -- would you not agree ?

 

[Silverbackman]

I agree with the thread starter. I view this universe (or Nature) as God and IMO it is the modern advanced way to view God. The universe may have a mind of its own, the source of all the conscious awareness in this world. So perhaps the universe is one big mind and we are perhaps either its only conscious or a separate entity or soul from the megaconscious.

Nature or the universe certainly fits descriptions of God; Examples are quite obvious;

Nature/Universe is omnipresent by default no matter what.

It is eternal and genderless.

If Nature/Universe has a God-like mind that transcends our laws on how the mind works. The mind of God/Nature/Universe would be omniscient and perhaps omnipresent. It is the source of all conscious awareness.

Natural events and caused by Nature. Think about it; during ancient times whenever a natural event happened they claimed a God did it. The term "God" can easily be replaced by Nature.

The Laws of God are the Laws of Nature because there is no way to violate Nature's law ;).

Okay I sort of went a tiny bit off topic but it does tie into the universe having its own mind. What do you all think?

 

[RVBuckeye]

The Laws of God are the Laws of Nature because there is no way to violate Nature's law ;)

I won't disagree with just to disagree with you, although your statement I quoted is pretty bold. I can only speak on what my experiences are and my intuition. These, to some extent, point me in the same direction as you.

Personally, what I haven't been able to explain is why I feel like I have a soul. This feeling is so strong in me I am convinced this is true. It's hard to explain, maybe I don't have the ability. Somehow, I feel like I am more an inhabitant of my body, a separate being. My body is just the mechanism I have been given to have experience. Which in my view, could be the reason for our ultimate purpose. (how can I put it without sounding like a nutcase?) Am I the only one that feels this way? I know I can't prove how I feel, nor do I think science will ever be able to explain a feeling. (you don't know how bad I wanted science to prove it, one way or the other). The fact that I exist sounds so impossible, but I do. (I assure you, even though you can't see me, I exist). So If I exist, someone or something that we call God must as well. That is how I feel.

As far as the topic of evolution, where do I begin? Why is there such disagreement on creationism/evolution that the two theories aren't completely compatible? Based on observation alone, can we not state that a literal interpretation of the biblical account is false, or at least foolish? We weren't there. All we have is what is observable and measurable. Let's assume, for arguments sake, that the universe is self-aware. If it's mind works like mine, I know there are points in my life where I have certain spurts of creativity. The fact that I have the ability to change my mind, or improve upon a past idea, does not neccessarily mean that the first idea was initially wrong. (if your thinking of God's infallability). How we came to be might be just a series of God improving upon his creation, as process we call evolution.

On a tangent of thought, I used to think that evolution was solely the answer, and, in time, scientist would explain it all, even the ability to create higher organs. I was going to cite the apparent evolution of a light sensing organ into what we now have as an eye. That has already been covered. What hasn't been covered though is another oddity of things, which is... How is it that animals seem to be symetrical? Meaning, if you split an animal down the middle, from head to tail, all seem to have 2 equal halves. (I'm talking the extremities, not internal organs). This can't be applied to all things which we seem to be "alive", certainly trees are "alive" yet not symmetrical. Also, animals are "alive", but not all are self-aware. Do you have to be self-aware to be concious? Could there be a correlation between the two? (conciousness and symmetry). Don't reply and say "my house is symmetrical...", I'm speaking on things we determine to be alive.

 

[Rade]

.. What hasn't been covered though is another oddity of things, which is... How is it that animals seem to be symmetrical? Meaning, if you split an animal down the middle, from head to tail, all seem to have 2 equal halves. (I'm talking the extremities, not internal organs). This can't be applied to all things which we seem to be "alive", certainly trees are "alive" yet not symmetrical. Also, animals are "alive", but not all are self-aware. Do you have to be self-aware to be conscious? Could there be a correlation between the two? (consciousness and symmetry)

Not all animals have "symmetry" as to form--look to the group called the "sponges". So, to the final question that you raise, the question becomes "do sponges have consciousness" ? The answer is yes because consciousness is the faculty that exists in all forms of life that have the ability to perceive that which exists. Thus, I suggest that the answer to your question, "do you have to be self-aware to be conscious" (because you assume that all animals are symmetrical)--the answer is no, so I find no cause-effect relationship between symmetry and consciousness.

 

[RVBuckeye]

Not all animals have "symmetry" as to form--look to the group called the "sponges". So, to the final question that you raise, the question becomes "do sponges have consciousness" ? The answer is yes because consciousness is the faculty that exists in all forms of life that have the ability to perceive that which exists. Thus, I suggest that the answer to your question, "do you have to be self-aware to be conscious" (because you assume that all animals are symmetrical)--the answer is no, so I find no cause-effect relationship between symmetry and consciousness.

Good example, I figured there was something I was overlooking.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Do you have to be self-aware to be concious? Could there be a correlation between the two? (conciousness and symmetry).

In my opinion, self aware defines consciousness, so I say yes to your first question.

Regarding symmetry, human consciusness is extremely attuned to it. It has been proven to define physical beauty in humans, for instance, and in art too. We could create asymetrical music, but it appeals to few people. We like it rhythmic and symetrical, like most else. Thinking too has a basic relationship to symmetry. Besides being left and right brained, we also evaluate by "weighing both sides" of issues. Look at equations? Why do they work so well? Because IMO they reflect an underlying principle(s) of reality.

So I think there is an fundamental relationship between symmetry and the development of consciousness.

 

[Silverbackman]

I won't disagree with just to disagree with you, although your statement I quoted is pretty bold. I can only speak on what my experiences are and my intuition. These, to some extent, point me in the same direction as you.
Personally, what I haven't been able to explain is why I feel like I have a soul. This feeling is so strong in me I am convinced this is true. It's hard to explain, maybe I don't have the ability. Somehow, I feel like I am more an inhabitant of my body, a separate being. My body is just the mechanism I have been given to have experience. Which in my view, could be the reason for our ultimate purpose. (how can I put it without sounding like a nutcase?) Am I the only one that feels this way? I know I can't prove how I feel, nor do I think science will ever be able to explain a feeling. (you don't know how bad I wanted science to prove it, one way or the other). The fact that I exist sounds so impossible, but I do. (I assure you, even though you can't see me, I exist). So If I exist, someone or something that we call God must as well. That is how I feel.
As far as the topic of evolution, where do I begin? Why is there such disagreement on creationism/evolution that the two theories aren't completely compatible? Based on observation alone, can we not state that a literal interpretation of the biblical account is false, or at least foolish? We weren't there. All we have is what is observable and measurable. Let's assume, for arguments sake, that the universe is self-aware. If it's mind works like mine, I know there are points in my life where I have certain spurts of creativity. The fact that I have the ability to change my mind, or improve upon a past idea, does not neccessarily mean that the first idea was initially wrong. (if your thinking of God's infallability). How we came to be might be just a series of God improving upon his creation, as process we call evolution.
On a tangent of thought, I used to think that evolution was solely the answer, and, in time, scientist would explain it all, even the ability to create higher organs. I was going to cite the apparent evolution of a light sensing organ into what we now have as an eye. That has already been covered. What hasn't been covered though is another oddity of things, which is... How is it that animals seem to be symetrical? Meaning, if you split an animal down the middle, from head to tail, all seem to have 2 equal halves. (I'm talking the extremities, not internal organs). This can't be applied to all things which we seem to be "alive", certainly trees are "alive" yet not symmetrical. Also, animals are "alive", but not all are self-aware. Do you have to be self-aware to be concious? Could there be a correlation between the two? (conciousness and symmetry). Don't reply and say "my house is symmetrical...", I'm speaking on things we determine to be alive.

Oh man, I used to have similar problems. I have had a similar feeling and it’s based on consciousness and souls. Why is it that I am the only one in the universe that feels self-aware? Now that may not make sense but in reality it makes the most perfect sense. Do you really know for sure whether people outside your own body exists? It may seem like they are but do you know for sure? That may sound very strange but it leads one to ponder whether all conscious aware life has a separate conscious than God. In fact life maybe the very mind of God and all minds maybe one (monism). Or perhaps there is a distinct difference between every conscious and God's conscious (pluralism).

Ok that last paragraph may not sound close to what you are experiencing but I think you really look deep into yourself it maybe one in the same. So where does this all lead to?

Well whether or not our conscious awareness is but one mind or separate minds one thing is for sure: there is a soul. But do not let this confuse into thinking that there is a supernatural per se. I believe in a soul but not the supernatural. This may seem like a contradiction but in fact that is only because of the Abrahmic stereotype towards souls.

So what is a soul? Many people consider it deeper and separate body from your own. But what is that? It must be your inner self. What is your inner self? Your inner self IS self-awareness and consciousness. This is your soul. This concept is often overlooked by many people but it is as important as realizing God and Nature are in fact one. And no dude you are NOT nuts. Many people ponder such questions all the time .

Now is awareness and consciousness supernatural? Of course not! Is that separate being you feel that can leave your body when you die supernatural? Of course not! Now we may know via scientific method where the soul (conscious awareness) comes from but just because they have not found out where it is doesn't mean it does not exist. There maybe a part of our brain or some energy force within nature that we may or may not ever know about. Either way you look at there is no supernatural. Religion doesn't have to be supernatural. Neither does God or the soul.

I suggest you look more into Eastern philosophy in order to understand more on the mechanics of the soul and God. Concepts such Brahman maybe able to help describe the soul, God, and the inner self. Read this article from wiki on Brahman;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahman

 

[Paul Martin]

Of course I am open to a valid scientific hypothesis. But, does not a valid scientific hypothesis need to meet the bar of Popper and be such that it can be "falsified" ? If so, then I cannot see how the Penrose hypothesis (thus yours) meets the bar of being "science"--

Yes, I am quite sure you are open to valid scientific hypotheses. And, I think you may be right that the Penrose hypothesis (and mine) does not meet the Popper criterion for a scientific hypothesis. But, is the Popper criterion the proper criterion for the question of consciousness? I think that is the fundamental question at issue here.

...is it not either philosophy or religion or some mix of both ?

Yes. But I think it could also be considered a mix of science and philosophy as well. I'd prefer to leave religion out of it (until later, as you will see if you read all of this post).

Clearly it cannot be "science" if it "exists" in another dimension of reality and does not follow the known laws of nature (such as E = Mc^2). And, if it does follow such laws, then no need to place it outside the known universe.

Yes, that is clear as long as the boundaries of science remain fixed where they are today. Those boundaries ostensibly include only the known universe, and thus they exclude any putative existence of a Platonic world (Penrose's "Ideal World") or of a Cartesian world (Penrose's "Mental World"). Science today limits itself to the Aristotelian world of pure physicality. (Please indulge my amateur attempt to credit the correct people with the original conceptions of the respective Penrose worlds, and forgive me if I have it very wrong.)

As I see it, the trouble with the current boundary is that the very evident phenomenon of conscious experience has not found a comfortable place in the Physical World. The phenomenon is clearly "known" to each of us so I think conscious experience should be considered part of the "known" universe.

The understandable position of science is that we simply haven't gotten to a satisfactory physical theory of consciousness yet, but we are working on it and fully expect to arrive at one sometime, if not soon. The point I am trying to make in this conversation is that it might be fruitful to consider pushing the boundaries of science out a little, to include Penrose's two additional "Worlds" in addition to the Physical World, consider some hypotheses involving the possible existence of them, and see if they might lead to ways of modifying, or extending, the methods of science to make it even more fruitful.

I don't think my suggestion is out of line with other historical extensions of the domain of science. It was at one time believed that the "heavens" were beyond the analytical methods of science; it was believed that the subjects of geology, or biology, were not conducive to experimental methods, and so on.

Let me give one simple example of how I think the scientific method might be extended into the "crackpot" realm: The widely reported NDE (it would be redundant to say "NDE experience, which is what I mean) is usually considered to be out of bounds because the reports of NDE are always anecdotal. Thus, they cannot be reproduced or independently verified. But I think an opening for scientific investigation exists nonetheless.

Since there seem to be many (or at least some) reports of the ability to view the scene of the body "having" the NDE from a vantage point high above the body, and the ability to "see" into adjoining rooms, or even the roof of the hospital, I think that that reported "ability" could be scientifically investigated. The method would be to have a team of scientific investigators spend time in trauma centers or ICUs or wherever NDEs are likely to happen. Then, when an NDE is first reported, have the team interview the subject, specifically asking about, and looking for, evidence of the putative ability to "see" or "hear" or otherwise come to know things which they could not possibly have seen or heard or known if reality is strictly bounded by the physical world.

In this way, we could systematically gather information as evidence to support or deny various theories of how those extra "Penrose Worlds" might operate. This is not a lot different from devising ways of analyzing information coming to us in starlight in spite of the impossibility of placing measurement instrumentation on the star itself.

Is it not just as logical for me in infer that Pan invented consciousness in animals (and hence the human animal), and if not, why not, why not accept the Pan Hypothesis as being just as valid as the Penrose Hypothesis ? Pan is a God--who is Penrose?

Not being familiar with the Pan Hypothesis, I can't comment much on its relative validity. The answer to your second question is that Roger Penrose is a high-powered mathematician at Oxford, but of course you knew that.

But seriously, you raise two interesting questions: 1. Who or what is responsible for "inventing" or "creating" or otherwise originating not only consciousness, but matter, energy and all other phenomena in our universe? and 2. How in the heck was that stunt pulled off?

The first question is easy to answer simply by positing such a responsible entity and then giving it an awe-inspiring name. For example, it is easy to say that 'Pan' invented consciousness and that Pan created the rest of the universe as well. It is also easy to say it was 'God' who did it. Or that a 'primordial universal consciousness' created the universe (my preference), or that an 'Absolute Unitary Being' did it (Andrew Newberg's words from that taped interview), or that an equation that summarizes the maybe-soon-to-be-discovered-complete-and-true Theory of Everything did it, or that a Great Raven did it. That's the easy part. People simply choose to accept one of these names and that's about all there is to it.

But the second question isn't so easy. How, for heaven's sake, did Pan create such a complex thing as a universe? How did God do it? By speaking magic words? How does that work? Or how does an equation yield a universe? And before it does, is that equation written down somewhere? If so, where? And doesn't there have to be some numbers plugged into that equation to get anything out of it? For example, you can't get a circle out of an equation for a circle without a plotter, or a person with a sheet of paper and a compass, or something similar. And how, exactly did that Great Raven make a universe?

So now I am faced with my own version of that question: How, exactly, did that Primordial Consciousness, (PC), create this awesomely complex universe with its seemingly conscious inhabitants? Well, here's my crack at the answer:

By hypothesis, we start with the existence of consciousness (thus obviating the Hard Problem that all the theories accepting competing hypotheses haven't yet solved). Since the consciousness we each are familiar with has the capability of imagination, memory, recollection, and judgment, it is reasonable to assume that the primordial consciousness also has these capabilities.

These capabilities are sufficient to imagine differences, which can be remembered and recalled, so that patterns in collections of them can be noticed, using the capability of judgment. These patterns can be judged by PC to represent numbers and elements of symbolic logic with which all the familiar mathematical structures can be constructed.

Among these structures are algorithms, which, by a pure exercise of PC's thought, can transform sets of numbers into other sets of numbers. The "before" and "after" sets of numbers after such a transformation represent a causal relationship between the two sets. Many such relationships can be built up with second order causal relationships established among them. Likewise, third order, and higher, relationships can be constructed by a combination of applying certain algorithms to certain sets of numbers, and by the direct intervention by PC of setting certain of these numbers to any values PC chooses to set them for whatever "reason" occurs to PC.

As Renate Loll has recently shown, dynamically evolving networks of triples of these causal relationships when aggregated in huge numbers, form a sort of fractal foam which takes on a 4D geometry at the largest scales. Influences on this aggregate network due either to the outcome of the processing of some algorithm, or by the direct intervention of PC by changing some numbers, propagate through the network as PC grinds out the results of the change. This has the effect of waves through the network which, if taken as the standard of speed or as the standard of time, will provide a definition and a calibration for the other.

This structure is what our physical universe is made of. Whether some of those triangles form strings, or loops, or some other structure that will appear in the real TOE remains to be discovered.

In any case, some of the higher level structures are constructed in such a way that PC is able to discern high-level information about these structures. PC, thus being aware of both the low level structure, i.e. the sets of numbers and algorithms involved, and the high level structure and behavior, may learn how to directly modify some of the constituents in order to achieve predictable and desired behavior of the structure. These are Gregg Rosenberg's "Natural Individuals". They are my "vehicles" driven by PC.

In order to merge and reconcile my notion with Rosenberg's, a couple clarifications must be made. First, in my view, the top individual in his hierarchy of Natural Individuals, which of course is PC, is unique in that it is the only one that is truly conscious. All other Natural Individuals are simply vehicles, or machines, similar to a computer or a telephone, that relay information to some conscious agent and which are not conscious of the information being relayed.
Secondly, Rosenberg's "receptive property" needs to be seen as being of two types. One is the receptivity of the output of the operation of algorithms, and the other is the receptivity of direct changes made by PC.

Thus, Rosenberg has provided a place for consciousness, and I have told how consciousness fits into that place. The net result is an explanation for the fundamental ontology of the universe, its method of operation or evolution, and the role consciousness plays in the entire picture. A very interesting consequence of this idea is that virtually every explanation of the profound questions as provided by every religious doctrine I have ever heard of, can be interpreted to make sense in this scheme. Moreover, it seems clear that the way in which these explanations have been expressed in language is about as good as you could do given the knowledge of the authors at the time they wrote. That goes for Pan, the Great Raven, the Gods of the Greeks, of Abraham, or of any other tradition.

Now, I don't know if the inferences I have made from my hypothesis are any more logical than what you might get from a Pan hypothesis, but that's the best I could do on short notice.

Now, you ask me to infer what might be made of the Penrose Hypothesis -- and I very seriously find it much closer to the Pan Hypothesis and the Pastafarian Philosophy than the explanation provided by the Organic Theory of Evolution concerning the origin of consciousness -- would you not agree ?

No, I do not agree. Again, I can't comment on the Pan Hypothesis, but I do think that what I have inferred from Penrose's hypothesis is more plausible than what you could infer from the Spaghetti and Meatball hypothesis. But I'll withhold judgment until I learn how that hypothesis explains reality and consciousness.

As for the Organic Theory of Evolution, I think there is a great overlap between that theory and my ideas. The explanation for all of the physical world is the same. The difference is that where the OTE does not provide any satisfactory explanation for the origin of consciousness, or of other surprising developments of evolution like the sudden appearance of organs, or body types, or of the amazing ability of butterflies to unerringly find their way to continents they have never visited, etc., etc., or the method of establishing the remarkably unlikely initial conditions for the Big Bang, or explanations for how a set of laws of physics could actualize anything at all, much less an entire universe, my ideas provide easy and plausible explanations for all of them.

So, to summarize, I'd say that my notions are not only closer to OTE than they are to Pan and Pasta, but they also provide better answers to the tough questions.

Thank you sincerely for your interest in my thoughts,

Paul

 

[LaPalida]

Lol. How the heck do you know that? See, you are doing exactly what I am complaining about. You have stated what created organs like it is a fact, rather than making it clear that evolutionary theory proposes that organs came about through . . .

And I've not said there is no difference between the two mutations, I've said there are no observations (i.e., evidence) that the microevolutionary processes we can observe today produced organs. Now, if you can demonstrate it creating organs (or in the process of creating them), then I will gladly accept that. I don't care what the truth is you know (even if I were a God believer, I don't think the reality of evolution disproves God). My concern is about objectivity.

Microevolutionary mutations are random. If not random then purpose right? No purpose has been observed then chance is the clear default stance on this argument. In an argument you take the negative stance as the default stance (best bet). Reality of evolution definitely disproves the literal God of the Bible or Torah or whatever other religion in my opinion.

Forgot to mention this also:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html

Got this off talkorigins.

Antievolutionists argue that there has been no proof of macroevolutionary processes. However, synthesists claim that the same processes that cause within-species changes of the frequencies of alleles can be extrapolated to between species changes, so this argument fails unless some mechanism for preventing microevolution causing macroevolution is discovered. Since every step of the process has been demonstrated in genetics and the rest of biology, the argument against macroevolution fails.

There is no difference between micro- and macroevolution except that genes between species usually diverge, while genes within species usually combine. The same processes that cause within-species evolution are responsible for above-species evolution, except that the processes that cause speciation include things that cannot happen to lesser groups, such as the evolution of different sexual apparatus (because, by definition, once organisms cannot interbreed, they are different species).

The idea that the origin of higher taxa, such as genera (canines versus felines, for example), requires something special is based on the misunderstanding of the way in which new phyla (lineages) arise. The two species that are the origin of canines and felines probably differed very little from their common ancestral species and each other. But once they were reproductively isolated from each other, they evolved more and more differences that they shared but the other lineages didn't. This is true of all lineages back to the first eukaryotic (nuclear) cell. Even the changes in the Cambrian explosion are of this kind, although some (eg, Gould 1989) think that the genomes (gene structures) of these early animals were not as tightly regulated as modern animals, and therefore had more freedom to change.

Yes, I say it is bad logic, and your examples don't fix that. A chihuahua can become a different species without new organs, and adapting a functioning intact organ is an entirely different issue than creating a functioning organ from scratch.

Well once again you're wrong because functioning organs are not created from "scratch". Show me where the theory of evolution says that! Show me where a functioning organ is created from "scratch" in reality. I don't know of one. Organs all evolved from previous other tissues.

Well, there are plenty of primitive critters around without livers or pancreases who could use one. There may be nearly two million species, and many billions of living things, why aren't there NEW organs in the process of evolving?

What kind of ridiculous argument is this? Yeah I could use some lasers in my eyes and an extra pair of arms. Why aren't I evolving them! Evolution must be false! In this case, you're making the argument for me, because if I evolved what I needed then it would prove that it's guided (by me in this case). Besides what kind of creatures are you talking about? Jellyfish have no pancreas...but why would they need one? They are perfectly adapted to their environment. If the environment changes then they will select for some trait that helps them survive, if none of them have a gene that expresses that trait which helps them survive the change in the environment then they will become extinct - plenty of evidence for this.

Oh, now there's a nasty little back-stabbing debating tactic. If a Nazi says we should love our children, and you say we should love our children, then are you a Nazi? I ran into that same ridiculous logic when I cited some points Phillip Johnson has made. Because he's the ID guru, people argued nothing he says can be considered plausible. Now does that make sense to you?

To make your case, or cast doubt on other's argument, you offer logic and evidence; you don't associate someone with person or philosophy an entire group is prejudiced against.

Your red herring example looks good on the surface but falls apart after analyzed in depth. Observe: Telling people to love children is not at the core of the Nazi ideology. In fact loving children or telling people to love children isn't part of their ideology. So what is their ideology? "Adherents of Nazism held that the Aryan race were superior to other races". So therefore anyone who says that Aryan race is superior to other races is in fact arguing for the Nazi case, if he believes in what he is saying then he is a Nazi. Now let's look at Intelligent Design. What do they believe? What is their core belief? "Intelligent design (ID) is the concept that 'certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.'" Hmmmm... and what is your argument? Your words exacly: "The reason we are now on evolution is because I am suggesting that since the source of organ-building genetic variation is open, then it is possible that a universal consciousness caused those genetic changes".

However I conceed that you are only arguing from the "what if" point of view. I am just pointing out that the arguments you use are exactly those used by IDers. Arguments that have been disproved. I want to point out also that I never called you one (IDer or Creationist), nor did I mean to imply that you were one. All I asked was a question and got a kneejerk reaction.

More strawman balony. I have never said God did it, and I have not concluded anything else either. You are the one who is repeately jumping to the conclusion that evolution did it. I am content to leave the question open until there is more evidence. When are you going to stop accusing me of what you are doing?

Chance alone creates high-functioning systems is YOUR strawman. Evolution does not claim that and don't try to pass that off as my argument either please. I said before that it's not chance ALONE. Chance coupled with other things like environmental changes, natural selection, radiation, sexual selection etc etc etc.

No you never said God. You have many times avoided and denied the implication however if evolution is intelligently guided (as you say is possible)... then by what or who? This same question was posed to all the ID advocates. Either they said they didn't know or outright said it was God. Now it could be a higher intelligence or aliens or even genes themselves etc. This is unlikely in your case since you always talk about the greater whole, the universal conciousness, the union with God etc. What is this if not God (and I don't mean God in the Biblical sense necessarily, it could be an all pervading and all powerful entity or conciousness). What possible other synonym could describe something that can guide, at the gene level, the direction and origin of life?

Please, take a logic course! So, because one thing lacks evidence, you get to stick in your pet theory which also lacks evidence? Show me the evidence that chance alone creates high-functioning systems? The main thing I see chance doing is creating chaos, so I'd love to see the type of chance you seem to know about.

You got the burden of proof all wrong: If something lacks evidence then you assume the default position: the negative stance. If you have no evidence for God then you assume the default position that there is no God. If there is no evidence that I commited a crime then the default stance is that I didn't commit a crime. Same for evolution, if there is no evidence for the guiding process then the default position is that there is no guiding behind the process (ie. random chance being the opposite of guided purpose). However it doesn't necessarily mean that this position is for certain. You have to be open to new evidence. So therefore I believe the evidence. Evidence = belief, lack of evidence = lack of belief. Since you are the one making the claim that there is some kind of guidance behind evolution the burden of proof rests upon you to make your case.

You don't have the evidence that chance can create an organ either. It's just that you already believe in evolution and so ignore and demean anything which challenges it, and then gloss over the crappy evidence you have for your cherished belief.

Once again chance alone does not create an organ.

Why is it my responsibility to educate you? I've have many, many times explained how one can investigate the reports. If you want to remain in ignorance of those reports, that's your decision.

No, it's your responsibility to prove your claims true. If you think these reports hold water... which you obviously do, then it's your job to show us that they are true. It's not up to me to go around and investigate every claim to knowledge out there. Burden of proof rests on you in this case. Besides there is a hefty sum provided by James Randi for anyone who can prove any supernatural claim true. If you're so sure of these mystics that sit on top of a mountain and gain some kind of profound knowledge by humming a mantra then let them know! They could make a million! I hasten to add that I don't think there is anything wrong with meditation and I don't want to poo poo people that do it. I object to their or others unfounded conclusions that there is some kind of force behind all that humming.

 

[Rade]

Yes, I am quite sure you are open to valid scientific hypotheses...Thank you sincerely for your interest in my thoughts

And thank you for at least making an attempt to provide an alternative idea (I will not use the term hypothesis, because your ideas about "origin" of consciousness are outside all known laws of nature, thus it does not meet the bar of a scientific hypothesis). So often when I push folks on this forum to provide an alternative to OTE I get the answer "no, I don't have to, I only have to find fault with your bias OTE bent". Well I just have no use for such intellectual pusillanimity. Now, I would like to comment on a few of your ideas. And, I find a problem with your argument because you state that OTE provides no explanation for "origin" of consciousness, which is false. And then you fail to realize that your own "hypothesis" in fact offers no explanation of "origin" for consciousness, thus I refer you to your statement:

By hypothesis, we start with the existence of consciousness (thus obviating the Hard Problem that all the theories accepting competing hypotheses haven't yet solved). Since the consciousness we each are familiar with has the capability of imagination, memory, recollection, and judgment, it is reasonable to assume that the primordial consciousness also has these capabilities.

So, notice, how you "start", your logical argument, not with a "hypothesis" (as you claim) that can be falsified as to "origin", but with a philosophic "axiom". That is, you hold as an axoim the Primacy of Consciousness ('we start with the existence of consciousness')--then you move to a very long and detailed argument about role of consciousness, etc. But, the Primacy of Consciousness (what you call PC) has been logically refuted since Aristotle--by the axiom called Primacy of Existence. First something must exist, then a consciousness as a "thing" (your PC) can be formed. Thus, you have no "competing hypothesis" to OTE for the simple reason that you start with an "axiom" not a hypothesis that can be falsified. Finally, how can you say that just because humans have properties of imagination, judgment that PC must have these ? This is not logical. I would argue that, if there is a PC, that it is "primary" thus simple, as found in the very simple forms of life that we see that show evidence of conscious behavior. You start PC as a complex machine, but nothing that is formed, not a chair, nor a universe is first complex, then simple. All machines derive from the simple, the parts, and the complexity follows as the parts unite. Thus, I find your PC argument to be based on more than a few false premises. Sorry, I really am trying to have open mind here.

Now, I note the following comment:

As for the Organic Theory of Evolution, I think there is a great overlap between that theory and my ideas. The explanation for all of the physical world is the same. The difference is that where the OTE does not provide any satisfactory explanation for the origin of consciousness, or of other surprising developments of evolution like the sudden appearance of organs, or body types

My goodness, where did you learn that "organs" had a sudden and surprising appearance in life forms on earth--or that OTE does not explain their existence ? An organ is nothing more than two or more tissues working together for a function, and of course tissues are made of cells. Organs do not just appear by magic from atoms and molecules--first you must have cells, then tissues, then tissues that merge to form function. How tissues merge during development to form organs as programmed by genetics is well known. Take your body for example, you have organs, did they by surprise and all of sudden just appear one day ? Of course not, at one time in your existence you were a single cell, fertilized by another cell, and your organs were formed gradually. If you find that you can using reason accept this as fact, I ask, what stops you from using a similar argument from reason that life itself on earth, over 100s millions of years, progressed in a similar (not identicle) fashion--that is, single cell forms of life with NO organs, evolved to more complex froms where cells form tissues, yet more complex over time where two or more tissues merge to form the first "organs", yet then organs merging to form organ systems.

 

[Paul Martin]

... thank you for at least making an attempt to provide an alternative idea (I will not use the term hypothesis, because your ideas about "origin" of consciousness are outside all known laws of nature, thus it does not meet the bar of a scientific hypothesis). So often when I push folks on this forum to provide an alternative to OTE I get the answer "no, I don't have to, I only have to find fault with your bias OTE bent".

You're welcome. It is my pleasure to be able to talk to you. As I explained before, I don't claim to be making a scientific hypothesis, so I agree that we shouldn't use that word to describe my ideas. I don't feel that you pushed me to provide an alternative to OTE and I don't feel that I gave you the response you enclosed in the quotes. I was responding to your claim that my ideas seemed closer to Pan than to OTE. Rather than providing an alternative to OTE, I was trying to point out that my ideas were in large part consistent with OTE and not similar at all to the Pan idea. I am only suggesting an extension to the current OTE .

I find a problem with your argument because you state that OTE provides no explanation for "origin" of consciousness, which is false.

That's not exactly what I stated. I said that "OTE does not provide any satisfactory explanation for the origin of consciousness", emphasis added. The explanation is not satisfactory to me, nor obviously to Les as is evident in this thread, nor to many others who have considered the question. The origin of consciousness is still a contentious subject. That's what I meant. I am simply offering a possible approach which might lead to a more satisfactory explanation.

So, notice, how you "start", your logical argument, not with a "hypothesis" (as you claim) that can be falsified as to "origin", but with a philosophic "axiom". That is, you hold as an axoim the Primacy of Consciousness ('we start with the existence of consciousness')

I agree that if 'hypothesis' implies the Popper criterion, then I did not start with a hypothesis. A philosophic axiom might be a better term for it, because, as you say, I do hold consciousness to be ontologically primary.

But, the Primacy of Consciousness (what you call PC) has been logically refuted since Aristotle--by the axiom called Primacy of Existence. First something must exist, then a consciousness as a "thing" (your PC) can be formed.

Now here may be an opportunity for me to learn something. I am not particularly well schooled in the arguments advanced since Aristotle, so I will have to discuss this strictly on the basis of what I do know and what makes sense to me now.

From what you wrote, I'm not sure what all is included in the Primacy of Existence axiom. I will agree that "First something must exist". But I am not yet ready to accept the second part, that "then a consciousness as a "thing" (your PC) can be formed".

The problem is that we haven't defined the terms 'something', 'thing', or 'consciousness'. It seems that until we do, we can't say much about which of these concepts must exist first. You claim that consciousness is a thing. OK. But isn't something also a thing? And isn't consciousness something? What is it about the Primacy of Existence axiom that rules out the possibility that consciousness is the something that first exists?

I would appreciate it if you would present the arguments you referred to which refute the Primacy of Consciousness.

Thus, you have no "competing hypothesis" to OTE for the simple reason that you start with an "axiom" not a hypothesis that can be falsified.

As I said, I don't mean to compete with OTE but to extend it or complement it.

Finally, how can you say that just because humans have properties of imagination, judgment that PC must have these ? This is not logical. I would argue that, if there is a PC, that it is "primary" thus simple, as found in the very simple forms of life that we see that show evidence of conscious behavior. You start PC as a complex machine,...

Yes, I agree that it must have appeared that way to you. I was torn between being brief and risking the possibility that you wouldn't read a long involved development. I agree with your argument that if there is (was) a PC, then it must have been simple.

In my thinking about this question, I have concluded that the most fundamental aspect of consciousness is the simple ability to know. That would be prior to anything actually being known, so PC would have had a very simple starting condition. From that simple starting point, we could say that the beginning of time, which means the beginning of change, would be the event in which PC would come to know something. It might be the realization that nothing was known. Or it might be the sudden realization that the ability to know exists. Whatever it was, as soon as something was known, then there would be a difference between the known and the unknown, and that difference could then also be known. In this way, a set of knowledge could begin and be built up into greater complexity. I believe George Spencer-Brown has worked out a theory something like this.

The other capabilities I mentioned, of imagination, memory, recall, and judgment, would not be present in the original PC, but would be derived or evolved by the exercise or manipulation of that primordial knowledge set. I haven't worked out how this might have happened, but I agree with you that the full-blown capabilities we normally associate with consciousness were not present in the early PC. PC would only become a complex machine after a long period of trial and error and evolution.

In dramatic contrast to the notion of God being involved in the creation of the universe, I see PC as being extremely weak, small, limited, knowing nothing, imperfect, and incomplete in the beginning, but being mutable and capable of learning, growing, and evolving. I don't know if that disqualifies my ideas from being "religion" in the eyes of scientists, but it certainly does disqualify them in the eyes of theologians and religious believers.

My goodness, where did you learn that "organs" had a sudden and surprising appearance in life forms on earth--or that OTE does not explain their existence?

From what I have heard of the Cambrian Explosion. 'Sudden' and 'surprising' are relative terms and I don't want to debate whether the appearance of organs was either one. I will retract any claim I might have made that they were. That is not an issue to me. What I am interested in, is identifying that original "something" which must have existed at the very beginning. That is the only addition, or extension, to OTE that I am suggesting.

So I would like to go back to "the axiom called Primacy of Existence. First something must exist,". Again, I may have truncated the axiom, but if so, it is this first part I want to examine.

We know that something exists now, so it seems clear that something must have existed first. Of course, if there is no such thing as time, then there is no meaning to the term 'first'. We also know that there is no such thing as now, so the only thing we can say for sure is that something exists. And that's fine. What I want to dig into is the possibilities for that 'something', whether it existed first, or now, or whenever. The question is, what could it be?

My approach, which I sort of sketched out in my previous post, would be to list all the candidates, rule out any candidates we can, and then make a judgment among the remaining candidates as to which seems to be the most plausible.

We could start with a list of all nouns in the English language. Then we could imagine narrowing the field to a list like,

1. Matter
2. Energy
3. Higgs field
4. Spin network
5. Causal Dynamical Triangulation network
6. Laws of physics
7. Organizing principle
8. An infinite, eternal, perfect, complete, immutable, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent God
9. Pan
10. A great Raven
11. A stack of turtles
12. A rudimentary ability to know

I think that number 12 is the most plausible candidate on the list. In my view, 8 through 11 are highly unlikely because, as you said earlier, the starting point must have been simple rather than complex like these four are. Although I don't think scientists are all in agreement, I think they would all say that OTE is based on one of the first 7. Not knowing which one, let's look at each one.

1. Matter has been the prime candidate up until recently. We now know that matter is simply a form of energy. So that moves us on to number 2.

2. Energy is simply the ability to do work, so if energy is primary, then we are saying that the 'something' we are looking for is an ability. I would ask whether the ability to do work is more plausible than the ability to know as being the fundamental entity. Knowing seems more fundamental to me than working.

3. The Higgs field, or any other field for that matter, is a mathematical construct. A mathematical construct is an artifact or a product of mind. To maintain that a field is primary, it seems necessary to have a mind that preceded it, which would make the mind primary. And if we expect that mind to start out simple and minimal, we are right back to starting with something like the ability to know.
4. Spin networks are mathematical constructs, so this is the same as 3.
5. Causal Dynamical Triangulation networks are mathematical constructs, so this is the same as 3.
6. Laws of physics are ideas that may be expressed mathematically, but in any case, laws are mental concepts, so again, a mind must be primary.
7. Organizing principle is another mental concept, so a mind must be primary.

Now unless I left off a good candidate from my list, or unless I have mischaracterized the nature of one of the first seven entries on my list, it seems to me that the most plausible candidate for the "something that first exists" is a mind, or an ability to know, or a primordial consciousness, all of which mean the same thing to me.

Furthermore, I claim that if you assume this ontological starting point, you can derive what would otherwise be the starting point for GR, QFT and ultimately OTE. It wouldn't negate anything in those theories but it would give them plausible underpinnings, and it would open up the possibility that PC might very well be active in non-physical ways today.

Thanks again, Rade, for the energy you have put into this discussion. I greatly appreciate it.

Paul

 

[Rade]

...it seems to me that the most plausible candidate for the "something that first exists" is a mind, or an ability to know, or a primordial consciousness, all of which mean the same thing to me.

First, I see no logical reason to consider that there must be a "first" thing to exist--why so ?-- perhaps "existence" has no beginning, no end--it always was, always will be (our "universe" may come and go, but existence remains). Next, if PC is "first"--what exactly is it to be "aware of" as you say -- aware of what ? -- there is nothing present -- thus it is completely illogical that PC can be first. If being aware is anything, it is inherently relational--e.g. to say that one is aware (or conscious) is to say that there must be an other that is the object of the action, that is, PC must be ultimately aware of something other than itself for it to have any logical meaning. And, I finish with a quote from Aquinas, which for me summarizes nicely why your concept of PC as "first" just does not hold:

"Thought does not need to be related to things, it is the relation" T. Aquinas

Now, if we follow the thinking of Aquinas, I do see that you have a point in that it is very likely that PC, while logically not the first existent, can be held to be the "first action" by which existents "become aware" of each other as you suggest--in other words, your PC concept fits well as an example of that which first allowed for entanglement of real existents--a concept of fundamental importance to quantum mechanics (e.g., entanglement). For example, suppose that the first objects to exist emerged (that is, we reject that existence has no begin-end) as "two" opposites formed at exactly the same time and place, a perfect symmetry, say positive charge things (+) and negative charged things (-). Or, if you wish, have one (+) in fact be first, the other (-) second--it does not matter. Next, let these two things then "become aware" of each other--e.g., they attract due to fundamental laws of physics to form a neutral union [(+) ~ (-)], where ~ represents the electromagnetic force that binds. So, Paul, I would suggest that the ~ may very well be the concept of the "primary consciousness" that you seek--that is, the "first" form of awareness between the "first" forms of existence may well be a type of electromagnetic force (which we now know also includes the "weak force" of nuclear physics). Now, here we find the concept of the "primacy of existence" of Aristotle. But let us move forward from there and suggest that the "primacy of existence" must form a neutral monism with the "primacy of consciousness" (your PC) in order for existence to evolve (e.g., without PC what we call existence would have stopped at the point in time of free (+) and (-) having no meaning--no union--no evolution). Now, it is also interesting to consider that the "ability to know" (your term) or potentiality for (+) and (-) to form union via PC must already be present within (+) and (-) as a type of hidden potentiality out of which PC emerges. Thus, I would suggest that PC can be defined as the fundamental "emergent property" of all that exists--e.g., existence and consciousness (=awareness) cannot be separated, in the same way that the heads cannot be separated from the tails of a coin and we still conceive that the coin evolve as such. This is my best attempt to consider your PC idea within the bounds of logical and science--but I cannot support any attempt at Kantian idealism which would conclude that PC takes primacy over existence, nor that "being aware" takes primacy over the question: aware of what ? For not even Descarte claimed that he was aware of the action process of awareness itself, in other words, a PC can never be aware of itself as being PC, it can only be aware of itself as an object of its awareness.

 

[Rade]

What is it about the Primacy of Existence axiom that rules out the possibility that consciousness is the something that first exists?

The Primacy of Existence is the fundamental axiom of philosophy (but of course even this is open to argument). It is the term "existence" that rules out "consciousness" as being primary. Consciousness is a single existent, Existence is ALL that exists, and the Primacy of Existence means that "all that exists" takes primacy over any single existent such as consciousness. Now, if one holds that existence has no begin or end, it is illogical to say that consciousness is first. Finally, to be "aware" means you must have an answer to the question, aware of what ? e.g., a "what" that exists must logically take primacy to the process (=consciousness) of being aware of "what". There is a philosophic discussion on the Primacy of Existence in the book by philosopher David Kelly, 1986, "The Evidence of the Senses".

 

[Paul Martin]

The Primacy of Existence is the fundamental axiom of philosophy (but of course even this is open to argument). It is the term "existence" that rules out "consciousness" as being primary. Consciousness is a single existent, Existence is ALL that exists, and the Primacy of Existence means that "all that exists" takes primacy over any single existent such as consciousness. Now, if one holds that existence has no begin or end, it is illogical to say that consciousness is first. Finally, to be "aware" means you must have an answer to the question, aware of what ? e.g., a "what" that exists must logically take primacy to the process (=consciousness) of being aware of "what". There is a philosophic discussion on the Primacy of Existence in the book by philosopher David Kelly, 1986, "The Evidence of the Senses".

Your argument doesn't convince me. Maybe I should read Kelly's book. Do you recommend it?

It seems that your argument depends on the definitions of several new (to this discussion) words. What do you mean by 'primary'? Do you mean temporally first? Or do you mean ontologically fundamental? In my view, the temporality of existence is separate and distinct from the temporality of our ordinary experience, so to me, the key question is what is ontologically fundamental. What is the basic constituent of which everything else is composed? And how does the term 'existence' rule out consciousness being primary? Just by virtue of its definition? What is that definition? And what do you mean by 'aware'? I think it might be possible to be aware of nothing. It seems to me a more pressing question would be Who or what is aware? It seems to me that in order to have awareness, there must be something that is aware. I think consciousness could be that something, depending on the definitions you accept for the terms.

Anyway, I would still like to hear your comments on my analysis of candidates for the ontologically fundamental essence of reality. Why is not 'the ability to know' the best candidate?

Paul

Oops! I wrote the above reply after reading only your last post. I didn't know you posted an earlier one relating to my candidate list. I'll study that now and reply to it later.

 

[Paul Martin]

First, I see no logical reason to consider that there must be a "first" thing to exist--why so ?-- perhaps "existence" has no beginning, no end--it always was, always will be (our "universe" may come and go, but existence remains).

I agree. "First" was a lazy way of describing what I really meant. I really meant the ontologically fundamental essence. If I can use the term 'primary' to mean that, then I will. If not, I need some other term.

Next, if PC is "first"--what exactly is it to be "aware of" as you say -- aware of what ? -- there is nothing present -- thus it is completely illogical that PC can be first.

As I said in my other reply, I see no reason why awareness can't be aware of nothing. After all, I thought we both agreed that if there were a PC, it would be extemely simple and rudimentary.

If being aware is anything, it is inherently relational--e.g. to say that one is aware (or conscious) is to say that there must be an other that is the object of the action, that is, PC must be ultimately aware of something other than itself for it to have any logical meaning.

I don't think so. I think you were the one to introduce the term 'awareness' and I took it to mean 'the ability to know'. The ability might exist in the absence of anything known.

And, I finish with a quote from Aquinas, which for me summarizes nicely why your concept of PC as "first" just does not hold:

"Thought does not need to be related to things, it is the relation" T. Aquinas

Here you are introducing yet more terms. What do you mean by 'thought', 'related', and 'relation'. I'm not ready to accept statements from Thomas Aquinas just because he is old.

Now, if we follow the thinking of Aquinas, I do see that you have a point

Hmmm. Well in that case, maybe Tom is OK after all.

... in that it is very likely that PC, while logically not the first existent, can be held to be the "first action" by which existents "become aware" of each other as you suggest--in other words, your PC concept fits well as an example of that which first allowed for entanglement of real existents--a concept of fundamental importance to quantum mechanics (e.g., entanglement). For example, suppose that the first objects to exist emerged (that is, we reject that existence has no begin-end) as "two" opposites formed at exactly the same time and place, a perfect symmetry, say positive charge things (+) and negative charged things (-). Or, if you wish, have one (+) in fact be first, the other (-) second--it does not matter. Next, let these two things then "become aware" of each other--e.g., they attract due to fundamental laws of physics to form a neutral union [(+) ~ (-)], where ~ represents the electromagnetic force that binds. So, Paul, I would suggest that the ~ may very well be the concept of the "primary consciousness" that you seek--that is, the "first" form of awareness between the "first" forms of existence may well be a type of electromagnetic force (which we now know also includes the "weak force" of nuclear physics). Now, here we find the concept of the "primacy of existence" of Aristotle. But let us move forward from there and suggest that the "primacy of existence" must form a neutral monism with the "primacy of consciousness" (your PC) in order for existence to evolve (e.g., without PC what we call existence would have stopped at the point in time of free (+) and (-) having no meaning--no union--no evolution).

I'll have to think about this when I'm less tired.

Now, it is also interesting to consider that the "ability to know" (your term) or potentiality for (+) and (-) to form union via PC must already be present within (+) and (-) as a type of hidden potentiality out of which PC emerges.

I think this is a chicken and egg problem. Which came first, the potentiality or the (+) and (-) things? It seems most logical to me to suppose the potentiality came first (here we go again) or was primary because potentiality could account for the (+/-) whereas the reverse means that somehow we get the (+/-) without potentiality and it then acquires it.

Thus, I would suggest that PC can be defined as the fundamental "emergent property" of all that exists

To me it makes more sense to say that PC can be defined as the fundamental essence from which everything else emerged. That way, everything is accounted for.

--e.g., existence and consciousness (=awareness) cannot be separated, in the same way that the heads cannot be separated from the tails of a coin and we still conceive that the coin evolve as such.

That would also be true if everything emerged from consciousness.

This is my best attempt to consider your PC idea within the bounds of logical and science--but I cannot support any attempt at Kantian idealism which would conclude that PC takes primacy over existence, nor that "being aware" takes primacy over the question: aware of what ? For not even Descarte claimed that he was aware of the action process of awareness itself, in other words, a PC can never be aware of itself as being PC, it can only be aware of itself as an object of its awareness.

I certainly appreciate your attempts and I thank you for them. I don't know enough about Kantian idealism to know whether I support it or not. As for PC being aware of PC, I think the answer must be "not completely". I think PC holds some mystery even for PC.

Thanks again. I'm going to bed.

Paul